Monday, June 23, 2014

America Unearthed and the Smithsonian

As
sometimes happen, I was just cruising around the TV dial (remember when there
were dials on televisions?) and came across an episode of America Unearthed. They were looking at a stone covered in runes
that suggested Vikings had made it to the new world and had actually gotten as
far south as New England long before Columbus. Examining the stone, the guy
said that because of the type of stone, he couldn’t tell if it was weathered
enough to be from the proper time frame.

Now
I believe that the Vikings reached Canada… that evidence seems to be solid. I
believe that a group of Europeans, from southern France arrived about 2000
years ago and remnants of their settlement have been located in Florida. It
also seems that the Clovis people, who might also have been related to those in
Europe, have been found in Virginia, suggesting that these Europeans arrived
much earlier than Columbus.

And,
there seems to be evidence turning up in Oregon that suggests the Chinese
arrived there some seventy or eighty years before Columbus. Or, in other words,
a lot of people from a lot of different places arrived long before Columbus,
and I haven’t even mentioned the people that all those others found when they
got here.

But
that’s not the point. It was something the geologist said after he asked the
owner of the stones if she had contacted the Smithsonian. She said she had but
their response was to ask her to donate the stones to the museum for display.

His
response to her suggested that he didn’t think the stones would be displayed.
He thought they would have disappeared into one of the warehouses holding all
those things there were not on display. In other words, he thought they would
be swallowed up and never seen again because, and here I’m speculating, the
stones suggested an alternative to our accepted history.

That
set me to thinking. How many other discoveries, how much other evidence has
been submitted in good faith only to be hidden away by those who believe they
know best? How much evidence has disappeared into classified files, been buried
deep in an archives, how much has vanished into files and locations that are
misnamed, and how many documents have been destroyed to keep those secrets?

There
is some corroboration from the academic arena. During the “Dinosaur Wars” of the
late nineteenth century, Edward Drinker Cope and his nemesis, O.C. Marsh,
fought over the discoveries, the fossil beds, and even stole discoveries from
one another. Marsh had the majority of his fossils confiscated by the
government with them then being given to the Smithsonian. Ahh, nothing like
having the federal government getting involved in science research and
determining who would be the recipient of their generosity.

Yes, I know that the confiscation of fossils
and then giving them to a museum is not the same as hiding the information away
in their basements, but it certainly does suggest a precedent. It does suggest
that information that should be in the public arena might be stored away where
no one can ever see it, and if they can’t see it (or study it) then the status quo can be maintained.

I
could apply some of what we know about the history of UFO research to this. There
are some disappearing files that might have given us some interesting answers.
As I noted in Government UFO Files,
the U.S. government collected information on the Swedish Ghost Rockets, but
those files disappeared when the official investigation began in 1947. There
are hints that they existed once, but they are gone now, lost in the great
bureaucracy that is the U.S. government.

This
all was sparked simply by the suggestion that had the Viking runes been donated
to the Smithsonian, they might have disappeared into the basement. Maybe the
Smithsonian would have put the runes into a public display. I don’t know. I
just thought it an interesting observation by a fellow who had worked with the
Smithsonian in the past. I thought of it as an interesting way of hiding
alternative history without having to deal with the problems such history caused.
I thought of it as a way of maintaining written history as we all have been
taught it was rather than updating it when we learn something new.

(And
as a side thought, the Smithsonian probably would have attempted to vet the
runes and certainly wouldn’t have displayed them if there was any doubt to
their authenticity… which is not a bad thing.)

(Update - I have been given the real name of the series... as I say, I caught it as I was cruising around the cable. Thought I would make the change.)

11 comments:

@KevinI believe you are referring to "America Unearthed", with "... forensic geologist Scott Wolter...". It is the most reasonable of the many shows of that ilk now running.

'History' is a fickle mistress. Take the case of Nicola Tesla. Just a tiny footnote in US history as far as the Smithsonian is concerned, until a group of Tesla fans started to complain. Just look at the degree of lionization Edison receives even now.

I learned nothing about Tesla (btw, a US citizen) in history classes, yet the real industrial revolution would not have happened without him. His 3-phase, AC power system originated from his work, not based on others, or mindless experimentation. .The Smithsonian is a politicized institution, much like everything the US Govt get involved with. I wouldn't trust them with anything of value..It's a bit like making Bill Gates the father of the computer.

Jason Colavito has been reviewing each episode of the series as they come out. He has documented extensively the cherry-picking, misdirection, innuendo and outright fibs made by Scott Wolter (who is also guilty of our old favourite, credential inflation).

In his various posts, Jason has disproved just about every statement of fact about early American discoverers that Kevin reproduces here.

I found Jason Colavito's postings interesting, entertaining and a tad bit snarky. I noticed that he didn't like the way the Giant Wall in Texas show was put together, but in the end, that the proper conclusion was reached... that the wall is natural.

I'm not sure that he disproved my assertions about early visits by Europeans (let's make that clear, according to Colavito that means white) have been disproved. The Vikings did reach Canada and did establish a settlement there. It also seems reasonable that those Vikings, while establishing no settlements in New England, may have explored that region.

What seems to be disproved is that Europeans established permanent settlements in the new world prior to Columbus, but there is evidence of such visitation. And I should point out that my conclusions, right or wrong, were not based on what Wolter said, but other information available in other locations... though it seems quite clear that the ancestors of the native people here immigrated from the Asian continent.

Of course my point here was that there is a historical precedence for scientists hiding information that does not conform to their personal beliefs and inventing information to validate those beliefs... and there is evidence that some of those same scientists eventually changing their minds when the evidence is properly presented and somewhat overwhelming.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Jason Colavito is a professional skepti-bunker. He's got a "...a bachelor of arts degree in anthropology and journalism...". He's a contributor to Septic Magazine.

Anthropology, like other social 'sciences', is based mostly on theory and conjecture, as there are few "facts" upon which to make any reasonably scientific judgements.

Colavito, or anyone, is incapable of 'proving' or 'disproving' anything, and neither is Wolter. Neither is capable of original thinking, as the well from which they source their 'facts' is already poisoned.

"In fairness, it should be pointed out that Jason Colavito is a professional skepti-bunker. He's got a "...a bachelor of arts degree in anthropology and journalism...". He's a contributor to Septic Magazine."

...OK... so we know a whole lot more about Colavita than we do about Anthony J. Bragalia...

Ironically, you ask about Anthony J. Bragalia, yet we know nothing about you. Tony doesn't post here, so this question is irrelevant here. If you desire this information, direct the question to the blogs which he hosts or the ones to which he posts.